I don't understand why you would want or expect "all else" to "stay the same." Restricting the vote to only taxpayers or to only property owners or to only whoever would be a change for the purpose of bringing about other desired changes, would it not?

Or, maybe I'm wrong about that. Do you just want non-taxpayers or non-property owners to be banned from voting just for the satisfaction of it?

I think you know exactly what you mean, and it might be a good point, whatever it is. But you're not making it clear.

Maybe if you wouldn't focus so much effort on the name calling and "yo mamma" jokes, you could explain things better.

I said assuming all else stays the same because I was discussing one issue. Every discussion doesn't need to involve every issue.

My God you're an idiot. You don't just play one on message boards, you're the real thing

I said assuming all else stays the same because I was discussing one issue. Every discussion doesn't need to involve every issue.

Well no, not every other issue. But changes aren't made in a vacuum.

You make the classic leftist mistake of static reasoning. A leftist says, "If government raises taxes, government will have more money. If government lowers taxes, government will have less money. I want government to have more money, so I favor raising taxes." That reasoning doesn't take into account how taxes affect the economy and especially how the economy affects tax revenue. Revenue goes up after a tax cut, that has been proven over and over. Static reasoners never understand that.

You said, "Assuming all else remains as it is now, I would make the rule that only Federal individual tax payers can vote. That means you have to actually pay net taxes, not just file," I assumed incorrectly that you thought that this would lead to better government. I believe that it likely would lead to a marginal improvement.

But you aren't advocating a taxpayer only franchise to improve government. Even if you could somehow know that banning non-taxpayers from voting would not improve government, you still want that to be the law.

You said, "Assuming all else remains as it is now, I would make the rule that only Federal individual tax payers can vote. That means you have to actually pay net taxes, not just file," I assumed incorrectly that you thought that this would lead to better government. I believe that it likely would lead to a marginal improvement.

Our government would be vastly improved if we had less of it.

People who earn money generally don't want to have it taken from them by taxes so that it can be given to people (or companies) that didn't work for it. Productive people won't in general vote for representatives who favor welfare states, but the recipients of welfare will almost always vote for representatives who advocate for and create welfare states.

I'm actually advocating that I not be allowed to vote, because my pension alone is not enough to require that I pay any federal income taxes.

Even if our government didn't get any "better" if they no longer had the power to transfer wealth, it would become possible for our government to avoid bankruptcy.

The bad unintended results of welfare are another matter that would be improved by not having welfare. The economic distortions created by subsidizing crony businesses would also be removed.

Not allowing unproductive people the vote could have many very good and necessary effects. We should try it.

People who earn money generally don't want to have it taken from them by taxes so that it can be given to people (or companies) that didn't work for it. Productive people won't in general vote for representatives who favor welfare states, but the recipients of welfare will almost always vote for representatives who advocate for and create welfare states.

I'm actually advocating that I not be allowed to vote, because my pension alone is not enough to require that I pay any federal income taxes.

Agreed. I am positive that your passion for funding the vast welfare program called "public school" by extortion would dim considerably if you were in the pool of extortees.

Quote:

Even if our government didn't get any "better" if they no longer had the power to transfer wealth, it would become possible for our government to avoid bankruptcy.

The bad unintended results of welfare are another matter that would be improved by not having welfare. The economic distortions created by subsidizing crony businesses would also be removed.

Not allowing unproductive people the vote could have many very good and necessary effects. We should try it.

Exactly. As I stated on another thread, public school is where nearly all kids - not just children on other forms of welfare - begin to develop a dependency/entitlement mentality. Exactly what advocates of big government want us to have.

Agreed. I am positive that your passion for funding the vast welfare program called "public school" by extortion would dim considerably if you were in the pool of extortees.

I pay federal taxes, state taxes and local property taxes. I have no children in school. I still think funding local schools by local property taxes is a good idea, and I don't like any of my federal or state taxes supporting local schools.

How do you feel about state universities and state colleges? Let's privatize them all.

Exactly. As I stated on another thread, public school is where nearly all kids - not just children on other forms of welfare - begin to develop a dependency/entitlement mentality. Exactly what advocates of big government want us to have.

That has nothing to do with local property taxes funding local schools and everything to do with who is in control of the educational process. I went through the public school system from 1955 to 1968 and was taught individual responsibility the entire time.

Schools changed under the U.S. Dept. of Education and teachers unions and they need to be changed back.